User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • {{Wikidata Infobox|qid=Q125119341}}
Family Tree

Best OCR tool

[edit]

Publication outside the US

[edit]
  • The Commons:Hirtle Chart and {{PD-1996}} both state that for a foreign publication to be eligible for a US copyright from 1929 through 1977 you still had to be in compliance with US copyright formalities, which would include a copyright symbol and US copyright registration.
  • According to the Commons:Hirtle Chart and {{PD-1996}} you still must be in "compliance with US [copyright] formalities" to be eligible for a USA copyright for images first published outside the USA. This would include a copyright symbol and the year on all "perceivable copies" as well as USA copyright registration. Copyright was not automatic until 1989.
This is a main category requiring frequent diffusion and maybe maintenance. As many pictures and media files as possible should be moved into appropriate subcategories.

{{Categorise}}

This category should only contain other categories. Galleries should be in the corresponding categories instead. Files should be in a parent or subcategory.

Find the correct source for this entry

[edit]

New people

[edit]

These people need to be created or linked to Wikidata

Wikidata

[edit]

Q104537203 add article image.

Notability

[edit]
  • User:Johan Wrangel

New data

[edit]

Peter Lauritz Gottlieb Pihl https://histreg.no/index.php/person/pd00000000371785

Scope is agnostic

[edit]
  • Commons:Project scope: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope."

VRT

[edit]

German and Swedish books scanned

[edit]

New York Times pdf

[edit]

I've repaired the PDF and uploaded it as File:Doctored Records In Graft Case Bare Mysterious $3,500.pdf. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), could you fill out the rest of the metadata and categories? I was able to upload the file by saving the PDF from the NYTimes URL, then opening the file in a hex editor and deleting about 500 bytes of extraneous text from the start of the file before the PDF header (%PDF-1.4). It might be possible to do this in a plain text editor if you're careful. Omphalographer (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Avoid webp files

[edit]

Threshold of evidence and Burden of proof

[edit]

Formatting and fonts and text size

[edit]
This is Courier text

This is Black Letter text

Due diligence and the burden of proof

[edit]

You cannot prove a negative. No matter how many rocks a person looks under, someone can point out that are more rocks, the best we can do is perform due diligence. Tineye looked at over 15 billion images and did not find anyone making an active copyright claim. Nor did it find an attributed photographer. Google image search performed the same search and provided the same negative results.

Projects using AI facial recognition to identify people in historic images

[edit]

DMCA takedown by the WMF

[edit]

Friends

[edit]
  • User:Zosia Soltya

Misidentified images

[edit]
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Letitia-Geer-Patented-medical-syringe.png

AI Upscaled

[edit]
  • {{AI upscaled}}
[edit]

Copyright experts as show by their cogent arguments

  • User:Vysotsky Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "The Royal Society 1934 London"
  • User:Yann
  • User:Clindberg Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Minerva_Kohlhepp_Teichert_1908.jpg
  • User:Asclepias Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg
  • User:Jmabel

Research skill

[edit]
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Letitia-Geer-Patented-medical-syringe.png

US Case law of published versus unpublished

[edit]

See the discussions here that discuss precedent and case law:

Unidentified people

[edit]

Need identification of these people or the identified people need Wikidata entries:

[edit]
  • To be eligible for a copyright in the US you had to register and then renew that copyright, and I cannot find any image of this person under any combination of their name in the registration or renewal databases.

Collapsable section

[edit]

DIV element with class="mw-collapsible"

Reich copyrights as alien property

[edit]

{{PD-US-alien property}}

Eye on

[edit]

Studio Harcourt

[edit]

Eyes on category

[edit]

Images deleted

[edit]

Deletion of family history:

Images deleted

[edit]

Kept

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

Consigned

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting: "Aside from Commons and Wikidata, there is nothing in any Wikimedia project using anything to do with William Francis Norton. This individual is not notable to either project on its own, thus fails scope."

Racconish

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

Ellin Beltz

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lyndon Johnson. jpg.jpg Kept
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pulcheria Keshko.jpg Kept
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Keshko.jpg Kept
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg Kept (very angry over engraving from the 1600s and leaving a threat on my talk page) Jeff_G and Ellin_Beltz. "Please read the message formerly left on your talk page. If you read it before, please read it again and operate on it. Deletion nominations are about the images - not about you telling administrators and bureaucrats - or even your fellow users - what to do based on your own opinion of how the system operates. COM:EVID requires information be provided by the uploader, not by other users, other administrators. In this case, EugeneZelenko correctly nominated it, in the absence of sufficient information. Mr. Zelenko is a Bureaucrat of Wikimedia Commons - elected to that position by his peers. I do not in any way attempt to correct his nomination to "no license" - which was utterly correct. The image could be removed from view based on the lack of information in the template which is the responsibility of the uploader. We do what we can with what we have, but in this situation, the uploader put "Own Work" which is obviously not true, and did not provide any clue to a source from which the file came. While you may feel it is "clear cut," it is not necessarily so - and it would be greatly appreciated by your fellow users if you were to skip the little lectures and just focus on the images. We do not operate on guesswork, but on the policies and guidelines of the project. This is - by the way - your second warning on this topic. I have one on your talk page, this is your second. Cheers!" Note the passive aggressive "Cheers!" at the end. "Cheers!" has become the passive aggressive way to say FU after a tirade.
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:M Snyder and 3 others Argentina (6881445606).jpg Kept
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arthur Morley Francis.png Kept "please stop lecturing on your opinion of how this gets done. If you'd like to lecture - the place for that is (as mentioned to you several times before) on user's talk pages, and frankly you haven't been here long enough to go around telling other people what to do."

Robotje

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

Adamant1

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

EugeneZelenko

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

P199

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niazi Mustafa.jpg "Wrong! Your "fixes" are just assumptions. Zero proof provided for date and licenses. Still nothing known about original author, source, and date."
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:La porallée en 1230.jpg Kept "How dare you presume to instruct an Admin and Bureaucrat on whether or not to open a DR? COM:EVID and COM:DP are both Commons Policies that were complied with in this case by both EugeneZelenko and Ellin Beltz. How can you be sure that the engraving and the text at the bottom of the image are both free, if the uploader is unwilling to comply with COM:EVID, and instead chooses 'Own work' illegally?"
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Giuseppe Barone al lavoro.jpg "Deleted: per nomination and PRP. The so-called "corrections" by User:RAN are just assumptions; we need proof."

Taivo

[edit]

These have deletion or retention arguments worth noting:

Ankry

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf deleted

Admin

[edit]

Generally if someone in a debate mentions that they are an administrator, and it is not followed by "how can I help you", it is intended to intimidate. It comes off as implying: "I have the power to block and ban you, so be careful what you say when opposing whatever I am debating." Admin people are trusted with a set of tools, their opinions carry no more weight than any other editor.

Structured data

[edit]

Commons:Structured data/Properties table

Public domain per authority of the host institution

[edit]
  • Category:PD per authority

"Unknown" versus "Anonymous"

[edit]
  • The argument keeps coming up as to using "author=unknown" versus "author=anonymous" and whether Commons makes any legal distinction between the two. The argument has been made by someone that "author=anonymous" should only be used when someone makes a legal declaration of anonymity, such as for the first publication of Primary Colors. I don't see it used that way at Commons. So, is there a legal distinction at Commons in the way it is used? Should a bot harmonize all usage to make a distinction?
  • Jmabel writes: "I agree that the author should be described as Unknown or similar, not 'anomymous,' but it is not obvious to me on what basis we can keep the image." - Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

But, what if?

[edit]
  • We generally rely on Occam's Razor, we accept the simplest explanation and we don't delete on hypothetical speculation. If you want something deleted, you need to provide actionable evidence not Fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which could be used to denigrate any image. For instance: Who took the picture? It must be the named photographer, right? What if the photographer was in the bathroom, and an assistant pressed the shutter release. What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release while the photographer adjusted a light. What if a monkey entered the photo studio while the photographer, their spouse, and the photographer's assistant, were inattentive and the monkey pressed the shutter release. What if the camera was on a random timer, and no one was responsible for pressing the shutter release.
  • What if the owner of the photographic studio was pregnant and while giving birth in the year 1900, and the newborn landed on the shutter release and now was the creator of the image, what if that baby lived to be 100 years old. The image was created in 1900 but the post mortem auctoris date is now 1900+100+70+1 and the image will not enter the public domain until 2071.

Released as CC at Flickr by a government, but exif data contradicts

[edit]
  • Generally we accept that the official Flickr accounts of governments have cleared the images they release to Flickr with their copyright attorneys, and the license they release them under is valid. We assume their legal departments are knowledgeable and competent concerning copyright laws in their own countries. If they withdraw the image from Flickr, or change the license, then we should delete.

Why use Wikidata links?

[edit]

Why not use Wikipedia links? Wikipedia links tend to not be stable, as more people get added to Wikipedia, names get shuffled around. Your "John Smith" might be moved to "John J. Smith" or "John J. Smith Sr." or "John James Smith" or "John Smith (politician)" or "John Smith (mayor)" or "John Smith (1800-1900)" or "Sir John Smith". Your "John Smith" entry may be converted to a disambiguation page and become "John Smith (disambiguation)". Even if the person has a relatively unique name like "John James Joseph Smith" there may be a child and grandchild that gets a future entry and the existing entry becomes "John James Joseph Smith Sr." or "John James Joseph Smith I". Some Wikipedia entries contain Unicode characters that are not allowed in urls, and the name in the link will display the Unicode, making the name unreadable. Wikidata Q-numbers are more stable, if a duplicate entry is created, the two are merged and a redirect is created from the duplicate entry.

Pdfs up for deletion

[edit]

Use a search like this.

Mugshots

[edit]

I looked through the renewal database for over 10 years and I have never found an example of a jurisdiction registering for a copyright, or registering for a renewal for a copyright for a mugshot. It wouldn't make economic sense to have the jurisdiction's lawyers file for registration, when there would be no future economic gain by republishing a mugshot. This would only apply to pre-1989 images, after that they would be automatically copyrighted and would have to be released into the public domain by that jurisdiction's sunshine laws. Sunshine laws in some jurisdictions make records public domain and other jurisdictions only make the records available to the public. Mugshots have been considered published, because they are made available to the public, multiple copies are made and filed chronologically and by name, and a copy forwarded to the National Crime Information Center, a collection of criminal data used by federal agencies.

Image AI searching PD newspapers

[edit]

Wikimedians

[edit]
  • 70 years after their death, the CC images will be public domain, and free from the legal restrictions imposed by the license. We need to track creator's life statistics.

Most used info

[edit]

Artistic and complex versus non-artistic and simple

[edit]
  • If the law was meant to protect professional/commercial photography versus amateur photography the people that wrote the laws would have worded it that way. Simple photography is pressing the shutter to capture what the world looks like without elaborate staging or costuming. See File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg where the photographer uses a set, costumes, and elaborate poses. Pointing the camera and pressing the shutter release, is something a monkey can do. See: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg.
  • PD-Sweden-photo. All images taken prior to the law change on 1 January 1973 that are not "artistic" were never eligible for copyright. For an example of an artistic image. See File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg where the photographer uses a set, costumes, and elaborate poses. Just pressing the shutter release is something a monkey can do. See: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg.
  • PD-Sweden-photo. I think it meets the terms of PD-Sweden, just point and shoot with a flash, no elaborate staging, no elaborate set design, no elaborate pose, and no elaborate costume. The law does not distinguish between amateur and professional/commercial images, but between "simple photography" and "art photography". I think all would agree that this is an art photograph: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg, it contains all the elements missing in the one up for deletion. Just pressing the shutter, with good lighting, is something a monkey can do: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg.
  • PD-Italy. Simple photographs, require pressing the shutter on a camera, something a monkey can do. Images need the complex staging of what most people would think of as an art photo, like in this image: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg. If the law was meant to give special status to commercial photography they would have used that term in the wording.
  • PD-Italy. The license distinguishes between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs". It does not distinguish between commercial works and amateur works. For example this is a "work of photographic art": File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg with elaborate staging and costuming. Works of art are in museums, as is the the Dali image. "Simple photographs" are sold to the sitter or kept by the family or given to friends. Simply using a flash does not elevate a portrait to a work of art. If the law was meant to protect anonymous "commercial photography", it would have used that phrase in the law. Pressing the shutter to take an image is something a monkey can do: something a monkey can do.
  • PD-Italy. The license distinguishes between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs". For example this is a "work of photographic art": File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg with elaborate staging and costuming. Works of art are in museums, as is the the Dali image. "Simple photographs" are sold to the sitter or kept by the family or given to friends. Pressing the shutter to take an image is something a monkey can do: something a monkey can do.
[edit]

The image was deleted based on a flawed understanding of the concept of a character copyright. We house over a dozen images from the tv show because those specific images have fallen into the public domain, even though the character may still be under copyright. Having the character under copyright prevents people from creating new content based on the character and have nothing to do with images that have fallen into the public domain.

Courts have disagreed with you. Only elements of a PD movie or whatever which are not derivative of existing works are OK. If it's a derivative work, it's still a derivative work, and if the underlying work (such as a character copyright) is still under copyright, that author loses none of their rights. The Warner Bros vs Avela case said: We also held above that the characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain. In addition, because the characters achieved copyright protection through the short films before all but the first movie poster entered the public domain, and the later movie posters necessarily exhibit those characters, even the use of any movie poster but the first requires Warner Bros.’s authorization. Publicity material which comes out before a movie is generally public domain if notice was forgotten, because the character copyright is established by the actual movie which comes later. However, if later material becomes public domain, it is not OK to use if it is still derivative of another work. So, "public domain" posters from a later movie were not OK, since the earlier movie established the character copyright. They also site the case of Russell v. Price, where a movie was not renewed, but distributing copies of that movie was still infringement of the original play on which the movie was based -- only the original movie producers had the derivative license. The article you cite does not state anything like your claim -- that was a claim that some general traits from later Sherlock Holmes books (still under U.S. copyright) were used in a Netflix movie. Netflix said that the claims did not amount to protectable expression -- general "niceness" traits aren't enough for copyright, since a character copyright is created by more specific details. I don't think a judge ruled either way on the merits, since the article says the lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn (likely indicating an out-of-court settlement). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirk Alyn as Superman in a publicity still from 1948.jpg Kept character copyright

Russia

[edit]
  • Publication according to the URAA and Berne agreements is when an image is "made public", not just published/republished in a book. "Made public" is when an image leaves the custody of the photographer and an image goes to the sitter. I could see a claim of unpublished if we had evidence that an image remained with a photographer and was never seen by a member of the public, or if we had specific Russian case law that narrowed the definition of "published". Some jurisdictions have clearly defined what published/unpublished means, but not Russia.
  • I don't see any Russian case law disputing that images are made public (publication) at creation, unless we have a provenance showing they were never viewed by the public, and remained as negatives with the creator.

PD

[edit]

Please note the following chart refers to publication dates, not to creation dates. An early creation date does not ensure the item is public domain in the US. The chart refers only to items that were created before 1976 and not published in the US within 30 days of publication abroad. If they were published in the US within 30 days, they need the relevant US template, as US law exclusively applies. If they were not published in the US within 30 days, and were created 1976 or later, they are not public domain in the US. Please note the following chart shows that we must have publication information about each image in order to prove its public domain status.

First published in Italy (across)
Publication date (down)
 before 1929 1929-1963 1964-1977 1978-Feb. 1989 Mar. 1989-2002 2003 or later,
or never published
Published with copyright notice, registration, deposit with US copyright office, and renewed public domain not public domain
for 95 years from publication 		not public domain
until at least 2048 		not public domain
until at least 2048 		only public domain if
{{PD-old-70}} (95 years from publication for anonymous/corporate works, or 120 years from creation, whichever of these two is shortest)
Published with copyright notice, registration, deposit with US copyright office, and not renewed public domain not public domain for 95 years
Published with copyright notice
and without registration or deposit with the US copyright office 		public domain
Published without copyright notice public domain

Flickr2Commons

[edit]

Can we automate the uploading of political graveyard Flickr. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/politicalgraveyard/, under a CC license. Usually User:Fae would automate this, but he appears inactive and never trained anyone in how he automated the process with Flickr2Commons. If someone would make a training video, that would be appreciated.

Newspaper style

[edit]
  • {{block center|width=350px| }}
[edit]

"What links here" at Wikidata needs to show usage as "Structured data" at Commons. We often delete entries in Wikidata because we do not realize they are in use at Commons because we do not link to them.

Family tree template

[edit]

Suggestions:

  • If there is a birth_name available, use the birth name for women, so it doesn't look like someone has married a cousin.

Not renewed

[edit]

{{PD-US-not renewed}} [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html Works copyrighted before 1964 had to have the copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year]. If the copyright was not renewed, the work is in the public domain. No renewal notice was found for this periodical for issues published in this year. For instance, the first [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/nytimes New York Times issue renewed was from April 1, 1928]. Some publications may have renewed an individual article from an earlier time, for instance the New York Times renewed at least one article published on January 9, 1927. If you find any contrary evidence, or the renewal database has been updated, please notify me. No renewal notices have been found for articles supplied by the Associated Press to subscribing newspapers.

Category migration

[edit]

Public domain archive

[edit]

Stolen from a website

[edit]
  • Republishing an historic image does not transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock.

How do you prove an image is anonymous and has no source on the internet?

[edit]
  •  Keep Historical images are often nominated for deletion because they are marked "source=own work" and the uploader is listed as the creator. Commons:Project scope/Evidence requires that we provide a url if we download an image from the internet, but many images stored at Commons from the past are marked "own work" presumably because someone has scanned or rephotogrphed an existing image. What is required beyond the due diligence of a reverse image search against the billion images online, and doing a standard Google Image Search based on the name of a person, place or thing, to show that no author has been named, and the image is anonymous; and that there is no source online and the image was a scan or a photograph of an existing image. Epistemology doesn't allow the absolute proof of absence, so how much must be done to declare an image anonymous, to avoid deletion?
  • Generally we accept that it was made available to the public if found in the wild. Images found in archives, as negatives, that have a provenance of remaining in the custody of the photographer, and never made into a print, and most likely never displayed to a member of the public, we agree are "unpublished".
  •  Keep Images from photo studios are made public when they are transferred to the sitter. The sitter is a member of the public. As a counter example: We have whole sets of images where they are assumed to have never been seen by the public, until proven published, like the Bain Collection. The LOC received the negatives directly from the photographer, so we have a provenance from creation to final disposition for them. Most of the images were never found in circulation. Also to be eligible for a US copyright you had to display a copyright symbol up until 1989, and register for a copyright within 5 years. Copyright prior to 1964 had to be renewed, or they expired. You can see examples of a copyright symbol on negatives here: Category:Bain copyright notice.
  •  Keep To receive a US copyright, you needed to register for a copyright, and then renew that copyright up until 1964. There is no image of this description in the registration or renewal database. The image also needs a copyright symbol and the year, to be eligible for copyright registration. See: Category:Bain copyright notice, where even these are deficient, because they do not contain a year. See: w:List of films in the public domain in the United States where post 1928 films lost their copyright because of deficient copyright notices or non-renewal.

Fulton History

[edit]

When I do a search I get the search terms highlighted, which I can remove by turning off Annotations at the three dots in the upper right corner of the screen. When I take a screen shot I have no highlights. The problem is when the article is large and a screen shot will not grab the article at sufficient resolution, so I download the pdf, open in GIMP and then cut and paste the article into a new GIMP window. The problem is that the highlights are always there, whether Annotations is turned on or turned off. Answer: Truncate the last part of the url from "&DocId=####" to "&.pdf".

Published

[edit]

One of the details not discussed at Commons:Publication is our default position on when an image leaves the custody of the original photographer: Do we consider images found in circulation to have left the custody of the photographer (published) at the time of creation. Or do we consider images found in circulation to have not left the custody of the photographer (unpublished) at the time of creation. For instance most images taken by a commercial photographer are sent to the sitter, and those that are never picked up are eventually discarded. It is rare for a set of photographs to remain with a photographer and make it to an archive like the Library of Congress. For instance we have the Bain Collection where the original negatives remained with the news agency and a portion were never appeared in magazines and newspapers, and never left the custody of the news agency. These would be unpublished by default.

Current year

[edit]
  • January 1, {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}
  • January 1, {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}} - 95}}

Good advice

[edit]

User:Animalparty

Clawback

[edit]

The license it was released under is irrevocable and it is past the courtesy claw back period. There may be users outside the Wiki Universe that have republished the image and we would be erasing evidence of the license. A sinister person could have an image deleted here, then sue republishers, once the evidence has been deleted.

Restored

[edit]

Scope

[edit]
  • I find problematic the wording in Commons:Scope "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Private image collections ". It is often used in debates for deletion, ignoring the list of examples because no list can contain all examples. Every image uploaded by a user from their own camera is uploading images from their "private image collections". My series of local churches and my series of local cemeteries are all from my "private image collections" and are not wanted according to scope. This should be reworded to remove the phrase "private image collections" and just include "private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on." Even "holiday snaps" is problematic if I take images of churches and cemeteries while on vacation, they appear to be not wanted by Commons. As worded, my trip, would have to be dedicated to the purpose of taking images and not involve any vacation activities and not be taken on a holiday. I imagine most images taken outside of one's home area are taken while on vacations/holidays.
  • I find problematic the wording in Commons:Project scope "Must not contain only excluded educational content." It is so poorly worded with a double negative that it is incomprehensible. An explanation is given as to what it means "no news", and then a second explanation that contradicts no-news, with "yes news". I have had public domain obituaries deleted because of the no-news rule.

Deletion redux and harassment and revenge

[edit]

People will punish you if you oppose them in a debate by nominating your uploads for deletion. I call these "retaliation deletions" and "punitive audits". You can nominate everything in a category in one click, and the defender will spend tens of hours defending the deletions, even if they are kept, it is a frightening tactic.

  • Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (2024) Bedivere with Andy Dingley admonishing Bedivere (423 files nominated) see also" William Francis Norton and the linked nomination for deletion. File:Emile Kellogg Boisot (1859-1941) probate in The Pasadena Post of Pasadena, California on February 9, 1941.jpg File:Marion Boisot (1897-1990) and Byington Ford (1890-1985) engagement in The San Francisco Examiner of San Francisco, California on November 7, 1920.jpg
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Thomas Patrick Norton II (2022) Racconish supported by P199
  • Commons:Deletion_requests/Family_history (2010) TreasuryTag
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Family history/Filelist/Classified (2010) Stifle
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Winblad-Janice 01.jpg (2008) Teofilo
  • Commons:Deletion_requests/Anton_Julius_Winblad (2007) LX
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Anton Julius Winblad II and others (2007) Polarlys

Yearbooks

[edit]

Well formatted copyright info Category:Virginia Tech Bugle

Object license vs. image license

[edit]

{{Art Photo}} {{Art Photo |wikidata = |artwork license = |photo description = |photo date = |photographer = |source = |photo license = |other_versions = }}

What percentage of images are in use

[edit]
  • About 25%

JPEG over compression

[edit]

{{Overcompressed JPEG}}

Basic Commons topics

[edit]

Scanned

[edit]

{{Self-scanned}}

Anonymous-EU

[edit]

{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}

Problems with source and date

[edit]

Imagine a painting by Gilbert Stuart (1800) later made into an anonymous engraving (1900) and then me scanning the engraving or taking a photo of it with my iPhone (2000) and uploading it to Commons (2020). We ask for a date and a source when uploading without specifying you expect the date of the original painting, or the derivative engraving, or the derivative scan. You also ask for the source, again of what, the painting, the engraving, or am I the source of the scanned image. I see almost daily nominations for deletion because the nominator is expecting the date of the Gilbert Stuart painting or of the engraving, but Commons Upload used the metadata date from the scan. How is a novice uploader expected to know which date is the preferred one? The same goes for using source=own_work, which the derivative scan or photograph actually is.

Jeff_G.

[edit]

Angry comments and threats

[edit]
  • File:Arthur Morley Francis.png User:Ellin Beltz: "you haven't been here long enough to go around telling other people what to do."
  • File:La porallée en 1230.jpg User:Jeff_G. angry: "How dare you presume to instruct an Admin and Bureaucrat on whether or not to open a DR?"
  • Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Abune User:Xunks threat: "this is not voting, especially by single-edit accounts as above. If you continue destructive edits instead of following COM:EVID policy, your activity will be discussed at COM:AN/U."

Zoomify

[edit]

Undelete at future date

[edit]

<noinclude>[[Category:Undelete in 2031]]</noinclude>

[edit]

Swedish abbreviations

[edit]
  • f. = född = born
  • d. = död = dead
  • g. = gift = married
  • g.m. = gift med = married to
  • past. = pastorat = diocese
  • s.å. = samma år = same year
  • stud. = student = student
  • reg. = regemente = regiment
  • OSO. = ostsydost = east southeast
  • ONO. = ostnordost = east northeast

Java

[edit]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/common.js

Family tree

[edit]

{{Wikidata/FamilyTree|entityId=Q20656285|title={{Q|Q20656285}}|ancestors=5|descendants=5|compact=true|invert=1|years=|decorate=by-generation}}

Speedy

[edit]

{{speedydelete|reason}} Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

When is a photograph published?

[edit]
Mention images that stay with the photographer.

Publication for the purposes of copyright is when a "discernable copy" or a "derivative copy" or a "tangible copy" has been distributed or viewed by the public. It does not mean appearing in a book, magazine, or newspaper. For a modern photograph the original creative work is the original camera negative (OCN), any print or duplicate of the OCN is a "discernable copy". The act of the photographer sending a copy to the person appearing in the image is the equivalent of publication for copyright purposes. This would not apply to daguerreotypes in which the positive on a metal plate is the original creative work, or images taken with an instant camera. Some negatives in collections may never have had a print distributed. For instance, the Library of Congress houses the Bain Collection original glass negatives, some of which may not have been printed and distributed. Up until 1976 distributed images needed to have a copyright notice. Images after 1977 no longer needed a visible copyright symbol.

Side by side images

[edit]

{{Infobox person | name = The Wright brothers | image = {{multiple image | align = center | image1 = Orville Wright 1905-crop.jpg | width1 = 150 | alt1 = | caption1 = | image2 = Wilbur Wright-crop.jpg | width2 = 150 | alt2 = | caption2 = | footer_align = center | footer = Orville (left) and Wilbur Wright in 1905 }}

{{multiple image|perrow = 3|total_width=400 | image1 = Walls of Constantinople.JPG | image2 = Hadrian's wall at Greenhead Lough.jpg | image3 = Ripa - le mura a via di sant anselmo 051211-06.JPG | image4 = Pingyao-muralla-c01-f.jpg | image5 = Nanjing Ming wall.jpg | image6 = 20090529 Great Wall 8125.jpg | image7 = Walls of Dubrovnik-3.jpg | image8 = Al-wastani gate.jpg | image9 = Jaisalmer citadelle.jpg | footer = Left to right: [[Walls of Constantinople]], [[Hadrian's Wall]], [[Servian Wall]], walls of [[Pingyao]] and [[Nanjing]], [[Great Wall of China]], [[Walls of Dubrovnik]], walls of the [[Jaisalmer Fort]], [[Gates of Baghdad]] }}

Most used templates

[edit]

{{Location|40.9840598|-73.6946565}} {{Anonymous work}} {{PD-US-unpublished}} {{PD-old-assumed}} {{PD-old-auto||deathyear=1942}} http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} {{gallery page}}

GPS

[edit]
  • {{Location|40.9840598|-73.6946565}}
  • P1259 (camera location) and/or P9149 (location of the depicted subject).

Exact date

[edit]

{{taken on}}

  • Category:United States photographs taken on 2014-01-24
  • Category:Photographs of the United States by date

Images of famous person by

[edit]

Category:Albert Einstein by Schmutzer (1921)

Deletion

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Images by Walter Stoneman archived by the Library of Congress

Video conversion

[edit]

Hi all. Just uploaded a webm video, which looks a bit lousy / pixelated. Yet exactly the same video on You Tube looks fine. Anything I can do to get a better, crisper, higher resolution? Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, webm can be quite lossy, so that's part of it. The part you can control is the software you use for the conversion. Most of the free software solutions are absolutely terrible at converting to webm, even with maximum-quality settings selected. Recently, Avidmux was recommended to me, and I strongly recommend giving it a try. Just make sure you select (in the left column) VP9 for video, Vorbis for audio, and convert to Webm. Click "Configure" under Video Output and make sure quality is set to best (can't remember exact wording, not at my home computer atm). The program is a little more technical than other options, but the quality is superb. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Really thankful for this. One question: why is the upload on You Tube (see my link above) much better yet same file was uploaded to both sites? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, I'm looking back at things, and I'm wondering if you were seeing a lower-resolution version created by the Mediawiki software. I'm not sure how the back-end works for video, but I know the lower resolution encodes get finished first, followed later by the better quality encodes (which of course take more time). When you click on the video at File:Generating WP articles from WD.webmhd.webm and click on the little gear icon at lower right, is "WebM Source" selected or one of the lower resolutions? Honestly, the video is looking pretty good to me at the moment when it is in WebM Source mode. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
If it's possible for you to use Vimeo, that does the best conversions to Webm that I've been able to find. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: No, HTML5 VP9 player is selected. No idea why. Can't seem to change it to the original. Is this the default? @Jmabel: i used Mirai Video Converter, and converted from a 1.48 GB mov file. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, I honestly cannot say why. I don't have that as an option, just "WebM Source", "sd 480p", "low 240p", "low 180p", "low 160p", and "low 120p". Anyone have some other thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 18:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Flickr Commons left at at this image

[edit]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/49923470032/in/photostream/

How do I search for a Wikidata Q number

[edit]

I can see that I added depicts:Q5342857 to a new entry here in Commons, but how would I search for something I may have added a year or two ago where I may have formatted it as [[Wikidata:Q5342857|Edward Young]] and would not appear as a standard text search? I did not add a category and cannot find it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You can use the insource search feature, e.g. insource:Q5342857 — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 21:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Commons:Depicts#Searching depicts statements You have to search with haswbstatement:P180=Q5342857 --GPSLeo (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Subpages

[edit]

Finger pointing

[edit]

You're looking for en:Index (typography) and Category:Manicules. Unicode has a few of them in the Misc Symbols block, whether they look old-timey, modern or Emoji-/Simpson-yellow of course depends on the font you use. --El Grafo (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For use in a transcription, you'll probably want to use either U+261E ☞ WHITE RIGHT POINTING INDEX or U+261B ☛ Black Right Pointing Index.

Coat of arms

[edit]
  • User:Dan Koehl
  • User:Naninghale

Video

[edit]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/video2commons/

Is there more automated upload method than Upload Wizard?

[edit]

Using Upload Wizard I still have to cut and paste the category 100 times and and cut and paste the description 100 times if I am uploading 100 tombstones from a cemetery, is there a better way?. RAN (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I haven't used any of them myself, but there are a number of tools designed for bulk uploading described at Commons:Upload tools. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
RAN in Upload Wizard there is this link under first image properties to copy them to all the images... --Jarekt (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ... I will try both tomorrow! RAN (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Images

[edit]

{{PD-US-not renewed}} [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ Images copyrighted before 1964 had to have the copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year]. If the copyright was not renewed, the image is in the public domain. No renewal notice was found for this image published or distributed in this year.

[edit]
  • First renewed issue
  • First renewed article

OTRS for a collection

[edit]

Can I release a whole collection of photos under a single OTRS mailing without naming each file? Or do I have to list each image in an email to OTRS? This determines how fast I have to scan a collection of images and where the OTRS ticket notice appears. The OTRS message can appear in the category for the collection, and/or in each image. RAN (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If all files belong in the same category and no other files belong to that category, it is easy. The OTRS agent will use a mass edit tool to add the otrs template to all files. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
To my knowledge, you can do so. For example, we have {{BollywoodHungama}} that releases the whole content of the website under one single OTRS ticket, apparently. Besides, the main point is to release it under a free, suitable license. The important thing is the content of the OTRS ticket, it can be about one single image, a collection etc. Ahmadtalk 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Similarly, OTRS can be used to designate a Commons account that you trust to operate on your behalf (but then, of course, you have to live with it if that person goes rogue on you). - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks! RAN (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Renewal notice and image match as an example

[edit]

Can someone provide a link for a renewal notice for an individual photograph that I can add to some boilerplate text. Generally we certify that a renewal notice is absent, but I would like to include a renewal example to show what it looks like. We also need the photograph hosted somewhere online, maybe one hosted by Corbis or Getty. I know it is hard to match a prose description of a photograph to an actual photo, especially when a dozen photographers were present from a dozen news organizations. A Good example if you can match them would be the one discussed by the Library of Congress: "It was discovered that copyrights were placed and renewed on the photographs of the Dionne Quintuplets taken by the [Newspaper Enterprise Association]." Renewal notices are here: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ RAN (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I found a copy of the image. RAN (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

1938

Structured data

[edit]

Commons talk:Structured data

Photograph of photographers vs. Photographs by photographers

[edit]

Do we have a standardized way to categorize "photographs of photographers" vs. "photographs by photographers". In most cases we have both in the same category which confuses a Google image search. Sometimes we set up "Category:Images by John Smith" and sometimes "Category:John Smith studio". Is there a distinction because one may be a solo practice and one may have multiple photographers working for the same studio? RAN (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates

[edit]

{{Institution|wikidata=Q1547268}} {{creator|wikidata=Q42303953}}

video thumbnail

[edit]

[[File:Mikael Karlsson.melodifestivalen2019.19e119.1080617.presentation.webm|thumb|start=1|]]

Deleted

[edit]

The Elliots

[edit]
  • File:Thomas Watt Gregory, 1861-1933 LCCN2002715434.tif

OTRS

[edit]

Please forward to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and remember to CC me

I hereby affirm that I am the creator or the copyright holder of the images as shown below:

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Sender's name] [Date]

Needs more work

[edit]

PNG to SVG for signatures

[edit]

Transcription

[edit]

{{t|Transcribe here}} [[:Category:Needing transcription]]

Renewals

[edit]

Interwiki

[edit]

Text

[edit]

This photo was created by Richard Arthur Norton. It is not in the public domain, and use of this file outside of the licensing terms is a copyright violation. If you would like to use this image outside of the Wikimedia projects, you may do so, only if I am properly credited, either by linking the photograph to this page, or with an easily visible credit placed near the photo in each instance in which it is used. Please credit authorship as follows:  © Richard Arthur Norton / Wikimedia Commons. Please maintain the original file name in all uses.

Licenses

[edit]

{{PD-US-defective notice}}

Public domain
This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, with a defective copyright notice (copyright notice information) containing at least one of the following defects:
  • Notice does not include the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr.";
  • Notice is dated more than one year later than the actual date of first publication;
  • Notice does not include a named claimant or does not name the actual copyright holder;
  • Notice is illegible or concealed from view;
  • It is a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work that does not include the year.
A defective notice does not invalidate copyright in cases where the error is immaterial and would not mislead an infringer, such as an abbreviated name. Additionally, foreign works created outside the US are subject to copyright restoration even with a defective notice. It is not in the public domain in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada, mainland China (not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany, Mexico, Switzerland, and other countries with individual treaties.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ +/−

{{PD-scan|PD-EU-no author disclosure}}

This image is in the public domain because it is a mere mechanical scan or photocopy of a public domain original, or – from the available evidence – is so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise. The original itself is in the public domain for the following reason:
Public domain
Public domain
The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), and no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication.
EU
EU
To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions:
  1. published over 70 years ago, and
  2. the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.

Images that lack either of these two conditions should not use this template.

Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication. Works which had not entered Public Domain in their country in 1996 that were uploaded before 1 March 2012 should be marked additionally with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}.

Note: In some countries anonymous works are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author if the author's identity became public in any way during the original term. In Germany this applies to certain works published before July 1, 1995; see Übergangsrecht.

English | español | français | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | sicilianu | slovenščina | 中文 | +/−

This tag is designed for use where there may be a need to assert that any enhancements (eg brightness, contrast, colour-matching, sharpening) are in themselves insufficiently creative to generate a new copyright. It can be used where it is unknown whether any enhancements have been made, as well as when the enhancements are clear but insufficient. For known raw unenhanced scans you can use an appropriate {{PD-old}} tag instead. For usage, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag.

Note: This tag applies to scans and photocopies only. For photographs of public domain originals taken from afar, {{PD-Art}} may be applicable. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.

{{PD-because|}}

Public domain
This file is in the public domain because (no reason given!)

This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used instead.

This work must carry justifications for free usability in both the United States and its country of origin.

{{PD-anon-expired}}

Public domain
This work was published before January 1, 1929 and it is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or fewer since publication.

{{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}

The heirs of the creator of this work hereby publish it under the following license:
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

{{PD-US-no notice}}

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art.
Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.

العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ ไทย ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Flag of the United States
Flag of the United States

{{PD-US-1978-89}}

Public domain
This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years.
Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macau), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

{{PD-old-50}}

Public domain This work is in the public domain in the United States and the source country. In most cases, this means that its copyright expired under the law of the source country and it was either published prior to January 1, 1929 or its copyright also expired under the law of the United States. Its copyright has also expired in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years or less.
To the uploader: please provide relevant publication and authorship details.
For non-US works, consider attaching a country-specific tag if available.
Note that in the countries and areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term, this work might not be in the public domain (this especially applies in Mexico and Switzerland). The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ dansk ∙ English ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ polski ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−


{{PD-GermanGov}}

Public domain This image is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German authority or court (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).

dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

{{PD-old-auto-expired|author's death year}}

Public domain
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country.
Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.PD-1923Public domain in the United States//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)

{{PD-heirs}}

Public domain
The heirs of this work's copyright holder (usually the creator) have released it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:

The heirs of the creator grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

{{PD-US-unpublished}}

This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions:
  • its author died before 1954;
  • the death date of its author is not known, and it was created before 1904;
  • it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1904.

The above provisions are contained in 17 U.S.C. § 303. See also this page for more information.


{{Anonymous work}}

Public domain
Public domain
Warning sign
Warning sign
The author of this work is anonymous and this work was made available to the public more than 50 years ago. According to the Berne convention Art. 7, and the laws of many countries, this work is in the public domain.
Note: This template does not apply to works from countries that extended the Berne Convention or that did not sign it. In particular, this includes the European Union, the United States, India, and Russia. Please use {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, {{PD-US}}, {{PD-India}}, {{PD-Russia-1996}}, etc. in such cases and check Commons:Anonymous works every time, carefully!


{{PD-anon-expired}}

Public domain
This work was published before January 1, 1929 and it is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or fewer since publication.

{{PD-old-70-1923}}

Public domain

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

{{PD-US-no notice ad}}

Public domain This advertisement (or image from an advertisement) is in the public domain because it was published in a collective work (such as a periodical issue) in the United States between 1929 and 1977 and without a copyright notice specific to the advertisement. Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.


{{PD-1996}}

Public domain

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:

  1. it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
  2. it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
  3. it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).
For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights.
Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.

{{PD-Bain}} {{PD-Bain}}

{{PD-NYWT&S}} {{PD-NYWT&S}}

{{PD-US-no notice}}

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art.
Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.

العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ ไทย ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Flag of the United States
Flag of the United States

{{PD-CAGov}} {{PD-CAGov}}

{{PD-ineligible}}

This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.

{{PD-USGov-DOC-Census}}

Public domain
This image or file is a work of a United States Census Bureau employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

English ∙ español ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ עברית ∙ +/−


{{PD-1978}}

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art.
Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.

العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ ไทย ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Flag of the United States
Flag of the United States

{{PD-1996}}

Public domain

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:

  1. it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),
  2. it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,
  3. it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).
For background information, see the explanations on Non-U.S. copyrights.
Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings.

{{PD-US}}

Public domain
Public domain
This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1929, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. See this page for further explanation.
United States
United States
This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States; this especially applies in the countries and areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada, Mainland China (not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland. The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

{{PD-US-not renewed}} [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html Works copyrighted before 1964 had to have the copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year]. If the copyright was not renewed, the work is in the public domain. No renewal notice was found for this periodical for issues published in this year. For instance, the first [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/nytimes New York Times issue renewed was from April 1, 1928]. Some publications may have renewed an individual article from an earlier time. If you find any contrary evidence notify me.

{{PD-Sweden-photo}}

Public domain
This Swedish photograph is in the public domain in Sweden because one of the following applies:
  • The photograph does not reach the Swedish threshold of originality (common for snapshots and journalistic photos) and was created before 1 January 1974 (SFS 1960:729, § 49a).
  • The photograph was published anonymously before 1 January 1954 and the author did not reveal their identity during the following 70 years (SFS 1960:729, § 44).

For photos in the first category created before 1969, also {{PD-1996}} usually applies. For photos in the second category published before 1929, also {{PD-US-expired}} usually applies.

If the photographer died before 1954, {{PD-old-70}} should be used instead of this tag. If the author died before 1926, also {{PD-1996}} usually applies.
You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.
 Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).

{{PD-old}}

Public domain

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.

You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.
 Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).
This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

{{PD-old-50}}

Public domain This work is in the public domain in the United States and the source country. In most cases, this means that its copyright expired under the law of the source country and it was either published prior to January 1, 1929 or its copyright also expired under the law of the United States. Its copyright has also expired in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years or less.
To the uploader: please provide relevant publication and authorship details.
For non-US works, consider attaching a country-specific tag if available.
Note that in the countries and areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term, this work might not be in the public domain (this especially applies in Mexico and Switzerland). The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ dansk ∙ English ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ polski ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

{{PD-old-70-1923}}

Public domain

This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

{{PD-US-unpublished}}

This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions:
  • its author died before 1954;
  • the death date of its author is not known, and it was created before 1904;
  • it is an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, and it was created before 1904.

The above provisions are contained in 17 U.S.C. § 303. See also this page for more information.


Places

[edit]

Templates

[edit]



  • Richard Norton



Restoration date

[edit]

Is there any way to load news articles under copyright, with a restoration date, without going through a speedy deletion process, so that they never actually appear and are restored at the appropriate date? Can we preload works expiring on January 1, 2024. RAN (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For that particular case, why bother? Wait 8 weeks. - Jmabel ! talk 12:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I have some 2025 material too. --RAN (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Off the top of my head: slap a maintenance category on them, and we can delete the whole category with VFC. But unless you make a list of them in Category:Undelete in 2025, it may be difficult to find when the time comes. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Appeal

[edit]

f3baddc574fad59c9fb6ad1bba68320ee62b8445d624c717162f41dfa558069a1e418957957f9eae22b8426e1c85477b37b5f07fcfca5f56012439f3ceb1d092

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)&oldid=932201886"